Connecticut Supreme Court Issues Decision Allowing Sandy Hook Families to Sue Gun Maker

[Winston]

So you pray the AR-15s?

The sad thing is that you really expect to be holding a gun when I tap on your shoulder

 

[Winston]

Lie number 5 that I have actually witness from you.

Wow. Now the professor has witnesses.......


More delusions

Again, how come you never call me a liar for calling you retarded?

He he he

 

[JuliefromOhio]

The NRA/GOP protection racket (like gangsters) enacted laws so citizens couldn't sue the gun industry.
No more.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

Guns = penises.

 

[trapdoor]

They do all the time

Yes, automakers are sometimes sued by people when the car malfunctions, but not when someone misuses the car.

 

[trapdoor]

The one you built will never be on the list of best sniper or hunting rifles, but you keep believing

That's fine, because I'm not using it for sniping or hunting.

 

[Winston]

That's fine, because I'm not using it for sniping or hunting.

Then the weapon has no purpose, except for you to pray too.

Seriously if an enemy did appear, wouldn't a highly accurate weapon be superior to an inaccurate one?

Its junk

 

[trapdoor]

Then the weapon has no purpose, except for you to pray too.

Seriously if an enemy did appear, wouldn't a highly accurate weapon be superior to an inaccurate one?

Its junk

I built mine to roll cans around on my property and occasionally poke holes in paper at the range. I doubt I ever encounter an enemy in either environment, but if I did, that rifle's 3-inch groups at 100 yards would be more than adequate accuracy.

 

[Winston]

I built mine to roll cans around on my property and occasionally poke holes in paper at the range. I doubt I ever encounter an enemy in either environment, but if I did, that rifle's 3-inch groups at 100 yards would be more than adequate accuracy.

You will never qualify with that

Wait I take that back, you are fully qualified to pop cans

That said the sherriff will take issue with your can popping in the yard, which in most places would be an illegal discharge

But u keep pretending

 

[trapdoor]

You will never qualify with that

Wait I take that back, you are fully qualified to pop cans

That said the sherriff will take issue with your can popping in the yard, which in most places would be an illegal discharge

But u keep pretending

I don't know what you're talking about "qualifying." I qualified expert with M-16 to old and beat up it probably only shot about 5-inch groups at 100 yards. You just have to do 36 out of 40 on the surprise range -- it's not like you're trying to light a goddamn match.

I live in a rural area, outside city limits, and I can roll cans around my back yard in complete legality.

 

[Winston]

I don't know what you're talking about "qualifying." I qualified expert with M-16 to old and beat up it probably only shot about 5-inch groups at 100 yards. You just have to do 36 out of 40 on the surprise range -- it's not like you're trying to light a goddamn match.

I live in a rural area, outside city limits, and I can roll cans around my back yard in complete legality.

In the city or out, unless cans are in season and you have a valid can permit you are breaking the law. The reason is bullets do not always hit the can.

Dude, everybody qualified, including 100 percent of those who never should have

Next

 

[Abatis]

Actually kid Remington ALREADY went BANKRUPT.

Chapter 11 not 7 (restructuring instead of closing) and that was for two reasons; the Model 700 lawsuits (for which the PLCAA offered no immunity / protection) and how Cerberus Capital Management loaded the company with nearly a billion dollars of debt and cut corners so much that quality dropped -- with the resultant drop in sales for both reasons (add in the acquisition of Marlin and the cost-cutting there that nearly killed that brand -- you can't unload at any price a lever-action that doesn't have JM stamped on it) . . .
And again, check your sources because Remington emerged from bankruptcy early last year -- so not only are you touting old, no longer valid information, you are just plain wrong.

As for this post, I do not need check anything because I never bought Remington. I own some Raytheon, but not Remington.

WTF does that have to do with anything? Doesn't refute anything I said, actually its a complete non sequitur. And really, if you want to claim no interest in Remington you should also state whether you have any interest or investments with Franklin Templeton Investments or JPMorgan Asset Management, if you did you were a part owner of Remington LOL.

Now grow up and stop playing with your bump stock

And you are telling ME to grow up?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-sandy-hook-remington/sandy-hook-families-can-sue-gunmaker-remington-connecticut-court-idUSKCN1QV2CY?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=76

Thanks, that article confirms my position:

"NOT A SECOND AMENDMENT ISSUE "​

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/nyregion/sandy-hook-supreme-court.html

Thanks, that article confirms my position:

"In the 4-3 ruling, the justices agreed with a lower court judge’s decision to dismiss most of the claims raised by the families, but also found that the sweeping federal protections did not prevent the families from bringing a lawsuit based on wrongful marketing claims."​

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/remington-must-face-sandy-hook-164738565.html

That article is just typical Yahoo left-slanted garbage, anyone who reads it trying to be informed ends up dumber for having done so.

 

[Winston]

Chapter 11 not 7 (restructuring instead of closing) and that was for two reasons; the Model 700 lawsuits (for which the PLCAA offered no immunity / protection) and how Cerberus Capital Management loaded the company with nearly a billion dollars of debt and cut corners so much that quality dropped -- with the resultant drop in sales for both reasons (add in the acquisition of Marlin and the cost-cutting there that nearly killed that brand -- you can't unload at any price a lever-action that doesn't have JM stamped on it) . . .
And again, check your sources because Remington emerged from bankruptcy early last year -- so not only are you touting old, no longer valid information, you are just plain wrong.



WTF does that have to do with anything? Doesn't refute anything I said, actually its a complete non sequitur. And really, if you want to claim no interest in Remington you should also state whether you have any interest or investments with Franklin Templeton Investments or JPMorgan Asset Management, if you did you were a part owner of Remington LOL.



And you are telling ME to grow up?



Thanks, that article confirms my position:

"NOT A SECOND AMENDMENT ISSUE "​

Thanks, that article confirms my position:

"In the 4-3 ruling, the justices agreed with a lower court judge’s decision to dismiss most of the claims raised by the families, but also found that the sweeping federal protections did not prevent the families from bringing a lawsuit based on wrongful marketing claims."​

That article is just typical Yahoo left-slanted garbage, anyone who reads it trying to be informed ends up dumber for having done so.

Yup, grow up kid.......

 

[trapdoor]

In the city or out, unless cans are in season and you have a valid can permit you are breaking the law. The reason is bullets do not always hit the can.

Dude, everybody qualified, including 100 percent of those who never should have

Next

I'm sorry but you have descended into incoherence.

 

[Winston]

I'm sorry but you have descended into incoherence.

Uh huh, in other words I just left you eating dust

 

[Dawg]

I'm sorry but you have descended into incoherence.

since Jan. 2018

 

[Winston]

since Jan. 2018

I try my best to make you happy, but evidentally I am not talented enough

 

[Abatis]

Yup, grow up kid.......

It is amusing that you don't realize how much such a pathetic reply reveals about you. I understand that you can't craft a post that actually rebuts me, but sometimes it is better to just not say anything.

 

[Winston]

It is amusing that you don't realize how much such a pathetic reply reveals about you. I understand that you can't craft a post that actually rebuts me, but sometimes it is better to just not say anything.

You are nothing, and or no one, and as such are owed no response. The fact that you take this place serious is however noted in your file of delusions. Lol I suppose you are another constitutional law scholar, aka NRA member turd

Now, do you feel lucky punk, well do ya

 

[Abatis]

You are nothing, and or no one, and as such are owed no response. The fact that you take this place serious is however noted in your file of delusions

And yet you can't not reply . . . I recognize you are a troll that adds no substantive value to the discussion but it is fun toying with you, poking the drooling oaf in the side-show cage.

Say hi to Lobster-Boy . . .